In a major legal victory for both the First and Second Amendments, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has delivered a decisive blow to California's attempt to suppress youth firearms education and communication. In a case that directly affects the future of shooting sports and responsible gun ownership, the court has ruled that California’s censorship law—Section 22949.80 of the Business and Professions Code—is entirely unconstitutional.

The Law: A Backdoor Ban on Gun Culture

The origins of this case trace back to Assembly Bill 2571, which was later modified by AB 160. These bills combined to create a law that banned marketing or communication deemed “attractive to minors” if it involved firearms. This included:

• Gun safety education
• Youth hunting programs
• Junior shooting competitions
• Newsletter subscriptions or magazine mailings
• Any use of a minor’s contact information for firearms-related outreach

California's justification? Protecting minors. But in practice, this law targeted the very culture of responsible gun ownership passed down through generations.

The Legal Challenge

Organizations including Junior Sports Magazines, Inc., the California Rifle and Pistol Association (CRPA), the Second Amendment Foundation, and Gun Owners of California filed suit against California Attorney General Rob Bonta, arguing the law violated the First Amendment’s protection of lawful, non-misleading commercial speech.

Over a year ago, the Ninth Circuit agreed in part, blocking subsection A of the law. However, subsection B—which prohibited using a minor’s contact information in firearms-related communications—remained in effect.

That changed July 7, 2025, when the Ninth Circuit reversed the lower court and ruled that the entire law must be blocked.

Why the Court Ruled This Way

The court’s opinion leaned heavily on major First Amendment precedents:

• Central Hudson: The gold standard for evaluating regulations on commercial speech. The court found the law failed to pass this test.
• Sorrell v. IMS Health: Reinforced that states cannot restrict speech just because they disagree with the message.
• Moody v. NetChoice (2024): Reiterated that viewpoint-based speech restrictions disguised as neutral regulations are unconstitutional.

The court noted that California failed to prove that the law directly and materially advanced a legitimate goal. Since minors can already legally participate in hunting and shooting sports, the sweeping ban on advertising and communication was seen as overbroad and politically motivated.

The Real Target: Gun Culture

Let’s be clear: this wasn’t about safety or privacy—it was about eroding the culture of firearms ownership by cutting off youth involvement. Unable to ban hunting or basic firearms training, California attempted to silence speech and information that connects the next generation to the shooting sports.

Fortunately, the Ninth Circuit recognized the tactic and ruled accordingly:

“You cannot weaponize privacy laws to shut down speech you don’t like.”

What This Ruling Means

• Youth shooting programs can now operate and advertise freely in California.
• Publications like Junior Shooters can resume full circulation without fear of legal repercussions.
• Second Amendment organizations can once again communicate with young audiences without facing $25,000 fines per violation.
• Most importantly, the ruling sends a strong message: states cannot use indirect methods to dismantle constitutionally protected rights.

A Win for the Next Generation

This case might have been fought in the name of the First Amendment, but its impact is felt deeply in the Second Amendment community. The Ninth Circuit’s decision reaffirms that freedom of speech protects the future of gun rights, and that censorship disguised as “safety” won’t stand under constitutional scrutiny.

Attorney General Rob Bonta and others pushing these types of laws have suffered a clear loss. And while the fight isn’t over, this is a major milestone proving that when we push back through the courts, we can and do win.

Stay engaged, stay informed, and never stop defending our rights. The Constitution still matters—and today, freedom won.

Ninth Circuit Strikes Down California's One-Gun-Per-Month Law in Major 2A Victory

In a significant win for Second Amendment advocates, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has struck down California’s controversial “one gun a month” law in the case of Nguyen v. Bonta. This law had prohibited individuals from purchasing more than one firearm within a 30-day period, a restriction that the court ruled as unconstitutional.

The case originally began at the district court level, where a judge found the law violated the Second Amendment and issued an injunction against its enforcement. Although California initially succeeded in placing an emergency stay on the injunction, a subsequent three-judge panel reversed that decision, allowing the injunction to stand while the case continued.

In a surprising turn—especially from a court often perceived as leaning against gun rights—the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, stating that the law “facially violates the Second Amendment.” The court emphasized that the Second Amendment protects the right to possess multiple firearms and prohibits “meaningful constraints on the acquisition” of arms.

Notably, the ruling directly undermines a new California bill currently working its way through the legislature, which would limit firearm purchases to three per month. The language used by the Ninth Circuit—including the observation that there is “not even a historical cousin” to California’s restriction—suggests this new bill may also be doomed.

This decision marks a rare but powerful moment where the courts recognized and upheld the full scope of Second Amendment protections, rejecting the notion that the state can impose arbitrary limits on lawful gun purchases.

While California may attempt further appeals, possibly to the U.S. Supreme Court, the tone and content of the Ninth Circuit’s opinion suggest this could be the end of the road for this type of restrictive legislation. For now, Californians are no longer limited to one gun purchase every 30 days—a major legal and symbolic victory for gun rights supporters.

Big things are happening right now for gun rights advocates: a big legal win in CA and an important development in the effort to repeal parts of the National Firearms Act (NFA).

First, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals just struck down California’s “one gun a month” law. In a unanimous 3-0 decision, the court said the law was unconstitutional. The judges ruled that the Second Amendment protects the right to own and buy multiple firearms—not just one. This decision is a big win for the Second Amendment Foundation and the Firearms Policy Coalition, and it sends a strong message to other states considering similar laws.

Second, the Senate is now reviewing a major bill that includes the Hearing Protection Act and the SHORT Act—both aimed at removing suppressors and short-barreled firearms from NFA regulations. Today is a key day: the Senate parliamentarian is reviewing these parts of the bill to decide if they can remain in under the Senate’s Byrd Rule. This is part of a process that decides which parts of the bill meet budget rules.

The goal is to get the bill to President Trump by July 4th, and the full Senate vote could happen within days.

Bottom line: This is a critical moment for the Second Amendment. With a big court win and real progress in the Senate, now is the time for gun owners to stay involved and keep the pressure on lawmakers.

California AB 1078: A New Threat to Gun Rights

California is facing another round of aggressive gun control legislation in 2025, and AB 1078 is one of the most concerning bills making its way through the legislature. After covering a wave of new proposals since early this year, Second Amendment advocates are closely watching this one as it moves quickly toward the governor's desk.

What Is AB 1078?

AB 1078 is a direct response to a recent court decision that struck down California’s previous “one-gun-a-month” law as unconstitutional. Instead of accepting the ruling, California lawmakers are pushing AB 1078, which would limit firearm purchases to three guns per month. However, if the state wins its ongoing appeal in the Ninth Circuit, the limit would automatically revert to just one gun per month 30 days after the decision.

This makes the bill a lose-lose situation for gun owners: if the court upholds the restriction, it goes back to the original limit; if the court doesn’t, the new three-gun limit still undermines gun rights.

Where Does the Bill Stand?

• Introduced: February 20, 2025
• Passed the Assembly: June 2, 2025 (strictly along party lines)
• Moved to Senate Public Safety Committee: June 11, 2025

With Democrats holding a supermajority, the bill has faced little resistance and could reach the governor’s desk soon—unless major public opposition emerges.

What Can Be Done?

Organizations like the California Rifle & Pistol Association (CRPA) and the Gun Owners of California (GOC) are actively lobbying against the bill, but meaningful change will only come if California residents speak up. Phone calls, emails, and public pressure are urgently needed to stop AB 1078 and similar proposals in their tracks.

Final Thoughts

AB 1078 isn’t just about numbers—it’s about a persistent strategy to chip away at Second Amendment protections. Whether it's limiting gun purchases, imposing new fees, or sidestepping court rulings, California lawmakers continue to push forward, largely unchecked. If you're a Californian who values your rights, now is the time to get involved.

Is a Major Suppressor Company Quietly Undermining the Hearing Protection Act?

There are growing concerns within the Second Amendment community about alleged behind-the-scenes lobbying efforts by Silencer Central, one of the nation’s largest suppressor manufacturers and distributors. According to multiple sources and recent federal lobbying records, the company may be working to keep suppressors regulated under the National Firearms Act (NFA)—despite public support for the Hearing Protection Act (HPA), which seeks to remove them from the NFA entirely.

Here’s what’s unfolding:

• Inside sources claim Silencer Central has been lobbying members of Congress, including Rep. David Kustoff (R-TN), to remove the $200 tax stamp associated with suppressor purchases while keeping the suppressors classified as NFA items.
• Critics argue this move protects Silencer Central’s current business model, which relies on the NFA process to enable direct-to-consumer shipping—something that wouldn’t be allowed if suppressors were sold like standard firearms.
• Lobbying disclosures show the company paid tens of thousands of dollars to firms like Natural Resource Results LLC and RBW Group LLC to lobby for vaguely worded goals like “suppressor tax stamp conservation” and “regulation of suppressor purchases.”
• The timing of these lobbying efforts appears suspect—coinciding closely with the introduction of H.R. 404, the latest version of the Hearing Protection Act.
• While Silencer Central has issued a vague public statement claiming to support “reducing barriers” to suppressor ownership, it remains unclear whether they support full removal from the NFA.

Many in the firearms community, including industry influencers and advocacy organizations, are calling for transparency. They’re urging suppressor manufacturers to publicly and explicitly support the full version of the Hearing Protection Act, including Section 2, which removes suppressors from the NFA entirely.

This could be a once-in-a-generation opportunity to roll back one of the most burdensome firearm regulations. The bill is expected to pass the House and is moving to the Senate—where it could be passed via simple majority under reconciliation rules, bypassing the 60-vote filibuster threshold.

Actionable takeaway:

If you care about your Second Amendment rights and want to see suppressors removed from NFA regulation, now is the time to act. Call your representatives and senators at 202-224-3121, and voice your support for the full version of the Hearing Protection Act. Grassroots pressure is already having an effect—keep it going.

California’s Handgun Roster Under Fire – Big Legal Shifts Could Change Everything

California’s controversial handgun roster—a law that limits which handguns can be sold in the state—has long been criticized for being overly restrictive and outdated. This government-approved list only includes models that pass California’s unique safety tests, often requiring manufacturers to make costly and impractical modifications, such as adding a loaded chamber indicator, magazine disconnect, and microstamping technology. The microstamping requirement, in particular, effectively froze the list with decades-old models because the tech isn’t commercially viable.

But that’s started to change.

Thanks to a legal victory in Bolan v. Bonta, a federal judge issued an injunction blocking enforcement of several of these requirements. While California appealed parts of the ruling, the state did not challenge the injunction against microstamping. That means manufacturers can now submit newer models for approval, and several have already been added to the roster.

However, things aren’t entirely looking up. Another California law—the “3-for-1” rule—requires that for every new handgun added to the roster, three older, grandfathered models must be removed. This has raised alarms, as many of the older handguns don’t meet California’s current standards, placing the entire existing roster at risk of massive shrinkage.

The legality of this 3-for-1 rule, along with the core handgun roster restrictions, is being challenged in the Renna v. Bonta case. Originally filed in 2020, this case also won an injunction at the district court level, which was then stayed by the Ninth Circuit. After a long pause, it’s back in motion, and new briefs were filed as recently as this month.

With major Second Amendment groups backing Renna v. Bonta, and a strong legal argument that these types of restrictions have no historical precedent, there’s real potential to overturn large parts of California’s roster laws. If the Ninth Circuit rules against it, the case could even make its way to the Supreme Court—possibly affecting similar laws across the country.

That said, one major issue remains: SB 452, a law signed in 2023, plans to reinstate the microstamping requirement in 2028 after further research. So, even if progress is made now, Californians aren’t out of the woods just yet.

In short, the fight over California’s handgun roster is heating up again. And with multiple major legal cases—like Miller, Renna, and others—back on track after delays, the landscape could shift significantly in the near future.

Stay tuned.

TIME TO GET LOUD! WE NEED TO LET OUR REPRESENTATIVES KNOW THAT WE OPPOSE THIS BILL!

Copper Jacket TV discusses California Assembly Bill 1127 (AB 1127), recently passed through the state's Judiciary Committee. Dubbed the “Glock ban,” the bill would prohibit the sale of firearms in California that could potentially accept automatic fire converter devices—specifically targeting Glocks and similar handguns. These devices are already illegal under federal and state law, but the bill aims to preemptively ban any firearm capable of being modified with them.

The bill passed quickly, gaining significant support in the legislature and from gun control advocacy groups like Everytown for Gun Safety. Only two organizations—Gun Owners of California and Gun Owners of America—spoke in opposition. Critics argue the bill:

• Targets law-abiding gun owners instead of criminals,
• Attempts to make already-illegal behavior more illegal,
• Is likely unconstitutional based on multiple Supreme Court rulings (e.g., Heller, McDonald, Bruen),
• May lead to lawsuits costing California taxpayers.

Despite the opposition, AB 1127 passed the vote overwhelmingly, and the video encourages viewers to voice their opposition before it moves further. The host warns that California's actions often set a precedent for other states.

There is currently a case at the 9th Circuit called Sanchez v. Bonta that has just received major support from the CRPA and others that could lead to major changes to California.

The case Sanchez v. Bonta is currently before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, challenging California's ban on firearm suppressors. Initially, Mr. Sanchez, representing himself, lost in district court, which ruled suppressors are not protected by the Second Amendment. He appealed to the Ninth Circuit, which then considered appointing him legal counsel. This led to major Second Amendment legal teams—Michel & Associates and Cooper & Kirk—joining the case. Their goal is to establish that suppressors are indeed "arms" and protected under the Second Amendment, forcing the state to justify its ban with historical precedent. The case has gained significance, and its outcome could impact gun rights in California.

A new order just released yesterday by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is once again causing problems in California. This is in regards to SB2 and California's "sensitive location" laws. The cases are May v. Bonta and Carallero v. Bonta

The video on Copper Jacket TV discusses updates on California’s SB2 law and its "sensitive locations" provisions that heavily restrict where firearms can be carried. Two related court cases, May v. Bonta and Carolo v. Bonta, challenged the constitutionality of these restrictions, arguing they made nearly all of California a "sensitive location," violating Second Amendment rights.

Key developments:

1. A federal district court previously issued an injunction blocking enforcement of SB2’s sensitive location provisions.
2. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals partially overturned the injunction, allowing some restrictions to remain, such as bans on carrying firearms in playgrounds, parks, casinos, libraries, and parking areas. However, certain rights were restored, including carrying in hospitals, churches, public transit, and under the "vampire rule" (permitting carry in private businesses unless explicitly prohibited).
3. A request for a rehearing by the full Ninth Circuit (en banc review) was denied, leaving the split decision intact.

Next steps:
The plaintiffs may:

• Return to the district court for a final ruling, or
• Appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The video expresses disappointment with the Ninth Circuit’s decision, citing its inconsistency with the Supreme Court's Bruen decision. The host emphasizes the importance of continued legal challenges and legislative changes to address these restrictions.

The No Registry Rights Act, reintroduced by Congressman Michael Cloud and Senator Jim Risch, aims to prohibit the federal government from creating a firearms registry. Key points include:

1. Deleting Existing Records: Mandates the ATF to delete its current database of firearm transaction records, which reportedly contains nearly a billion entries.
2. Preventing Accumulation: Allows Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs) to destroy records upon closing their businesses, ending the requirement for permanent retention.
3. Prohibiting Future Registries: Bars any federal agency from establishing or maintaining a firearms registry.

The legislation responds to concerns about ATF overreach, including a searchable database created by digitizing records, which critics argue could facilitate a national gun registry. This practice allegedly violates existing federal laws.

The Biden Administration’s policies requiring permanent record retention and a "zero-tolerance" approach to FFL compliance have increased the number of small business closures, further expanding the database.

Advocates for the bill, including Gun Owners of America, the National Rifle Association, and the National Association for Gun Rights, argue the ATF’s practices infringe on Second Amendment rights and threaten privacy. They emphasize the need for vigilance and public support to ensure the legislation passes.

The sponsors encourage citizens to contact their representatives to advocate for this legislation, underscoring its importance to safeguard constitutional freedoms.